The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a revision petition filed under Section 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act. The court held that the statutory period of thirty days could not be bargained with and the revision was time-barred.
The writ petition fails and is stood dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 3840 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
NOUSHAD
S/O.BAVUTTY, THOMMIL PUTHIYAKATH HOUSE,TANUR (PO),
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TIRUR TIRUR(PO), PIN-676 101,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.4THE TANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,TANUR (PO), MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-676 303.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.HARISH R. MENON
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.HARISH R. MENON
SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SAYED MURTHALA THANGAL-GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3840 OF 2017
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2023
This writ petition is filed challenging an order dismissing a revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act.
WP(C) NO. 3840 OF 2017
3
unless the relevant statute provides such power to the authority. I notice that the decision of this Court in N.J Sebastian v. The District Collector, Kottayam District and others [2021 (5) KLT 745] specifically refers to the provisions of Section 13 of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 and holds that the statute did not confer any power on the District Collector to entertain a revision petition which was not presented before the expiry of thirty days from the date on which the order of the assessing authority/appellate authority was communicated to him. It was therefore held relying on the binding judgments of this Apex Court that the District Collector cannot admit or entertain a revision petition presented beyond the said period, even if sufficient cause is shown for not presenting the same within the period.
Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that the reliefs as sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted.
This writ petition fails and the same is accordingly stand dismissed.
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE
ska
WP(C) NO. 3840 OF 2017
4
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3840/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 :A TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED TO
THE PETITIONER AS K2-19714/2011 DATED 28-4-
2012.
P2 :A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 3-1-2013.
P3 :A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 19-10-2016.
P4 :A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW FILED BY THE
PETITIONER HEREIN DATED 5-1-2017.
P5 :A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE PETITIONERS
BUILDING.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ court can entertain a revision petition filed beyond the statutory limitation period of thirty days under Section 13(3) of the Kerala Building Tax Act.
Whether the statutory appellate or revisional authority has the power to condone delay in the absence of express provisions in the relevant statute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Kakinada and others Vs M/S Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care LimitedRelied on¶24
Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Kakinada and others Vs M/S Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [(2020)19SCC681]
N.J Sebastian v. The District Collector, Kottayam District and othersReferred¶27
N.J Sebastian v. The District Collector, Kottayam District and others [2021 (5) KLT 745]
2 provisions across 1 enactments
NOUSHAD
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TIRUR
THE TANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
ANU SIVARAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court